The Suarez/Evra Racism Row

[Jack D Rips]

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So in other word he should have lied to prove his innocence.

 

[robinhood]

[quote author=Asbo link=topic=47188.msg1448696#msg1448696 date=1324462681]
[quote author=robinhood link=topic=47188.msg1448691#msg1448691 date=1324462540]
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=47188.msg1448682#msg1448682 date=1324462289]
[quote author=Tinto link=topic=47188.msg1448668#msg1448668 date=1324461717]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448657#msg1448657 date=1324461433]

This is a serious question.

Is the word "negro" a racist word. If you call a person with black skin a negro are you being racist or factually correct.

Personally I wouldnt do it, but Im from Ireland not South America.
[/quote]

In English, yes it is. There's no two ways about that.

In Spanish, depends on context.
[/quote]

Since when is Negro racist in English?

Martin Luther King used the word in his 'I have a dream speech' if you recall?

As far as I know it isn't racist, or is this a new PC thing?

What do you call a Black man now then?

IC3's ? the worlds gone fucking mental .....
[/quote]



Of course referring to anybody's colour is a racial comment.


It doesn't make you immediately a racist, but it doesn't help.
[/quote]

Is Caucasian racist?
[/quote]


It refers to race, and if it was said in a heated way, like "yeah, you fcuking caucasian" then yeah, it would be

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

From what is reported, I don't think there is an indication that Suarez was being insulting.

Although that may change when we know the facts.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448704#msg1448704 date=1324462914]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448669#msg1448669 date=1324461817]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448657#msg1448657 date=1324461433]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448619#msg1448619 date=1324459453]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=47188.msg1448574#msg1448574 date=1324452868]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448526#msg1448526 date=1324430419]
FYI - Evra's statement is evidence. That alone is not enough evidence to prove anything. The QC involved knows this, so I'm willing to bet there's more to it than we're letting on.


[/quote]

We'll have to see what happens with the clubs course of action going forwards. Assume away though
[/quote]

Anyone willing to look at this objectively saw this coming. Forget about Evra, John Terry and everything else. If you own up to calling a black man in the UK a negro there's only ever going to be one likely outcome.
[/quote]

This is a serious question.

Is the word "negro" a racist word. If you call a person with black skin a negro are you being racist or factually correct.

Personally I wouldnt do it, but Im from Ireland not South America.
[/quote]

Of course you wouldn't.

But the question isn't whether it's racist or not, it's whether it refers to Evra's skin colour. Which is beyond doubt.
[/quote]

But why is the question not whether its racist or not? Wasnt he found guilty of racial abuse towards Evra?
[/quote]

Read the FA statement for what he was charged with and found guilty of. Not the newspaper shorthand.

 

[refugee]

[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=47188.msg1448711#msg1448711 date=1324463038]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448707#msg1448707 date=1324462955]
[quote author=robinhood link=topic=47188.msg1448693#msg1448693 date=1324462620]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448688#msg1448688 date=1324462472]
One man's "convoluted" is another man's "asking for consistency". I respect you fellas' views, but I absolutely do not share them.
[/quote]


You wouldn't have this opinion if Hernandez had called Johnson "negro".
[/quote]


Look at how the two clubs have handled this. Had that happened it would have been left on the pitch where it belonged.
[/quote]

I didn't realise Sepp Blatter posted on here.
[/quote]

Haha

 

[Jack D Rips]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448718#msg1448718 date=1324463323]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448704#msg1448704 date=1324462914]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448669#msg1448669 date=1324461817]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448657#msg1448657 date=1324461433]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448619#msg1448619 date=1324459453]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=47188.msg1448574#msg1448574 date=1324452868]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448526#msg1448526 date=1324430419]
FYI - Evra's statement is evidence. That alone is not enough evidence to prove anything. The QC involved knows this, so I'm willing to bet there's more to it than we're letting on.


[/quote]

We'll have to see what happens with the clubs course of action going forwards. Assume away though
[/quote]

Anyone willing to look at this objectively saw this coming. Forget about Evra, John Terry and everything else. If you own up to calling a black man in the UK a negro there's only ever going to be one likely outcome.
[/quote]

This is a serious question.

Is the word "negro" a racist word. If you call a person with black skin a negro are you being racist or factually correct.

Personally I wouldnt do it, but Im from Ireland not South America.
[/quote]

Of course you wouldn't.

But the question isn't whether it's racist or not, it's whether it refers to Evra's skin colour. Which is beyond doubt.
[/quote]

But why is the question not whether its racist or not? Wasnt he found guilty of racial abuse towards Evra?
[/quote]

Read the FA statement for what he was charged with and found guilty of. Not the newspaper shorthand.
[/quote]

Yes I did read it ok and I understand what you are saying. But every headline I've read,( And not just newspapers. Its TV and radio as well) is claiming that he was found guilty of racially abusing Evra.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So how would you reconcile the position that LFC have adopted - that he was found guilty solely on the basis of Evra's comments - when there is an admission ?

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448715#msg1448715 date=1324463270]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So in other word he should have lied to prove his innocence.
[/quote]

No, he shouldn't have bothered giving evidence or talking to the newspapers back home.

Because to admit to it was stupid, as I got ridiculed for saying about 30 pages ago by the Merry Band.

 

[robinhood]

[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=47188.msg1448714#msg1448714 date=1324463197]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448699#msg1448699 date=1324462790]


• The insulting words used by Mr Suárez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour;
[/quote]

Hmm

Isn't this just semantics, if you refer to someone's colour in a derogatory way, are you not being racist? How is that any different to what Terry said.

I wouldn't be surprised if the last few days of delay were actually down to or legal team battling to make sure the word 'racist' wasn't used. Fat good it's done anyway
[/quote]


If you refer to someone's race, it can be interpreted as racist and you have to accept that. Whether you are actually *being racist* though, entirely depends on your feelings, and only you have an idea what they are (although actually even you may not).

 

[gkmacca]

If the entire match had been studied they would have seen that Evra was raging at everyone - other players, people in the crowd, officials, etc - from about the seventh minute on. I remember looking at him and thinking he was bound to get sent off at some stage. In retrospect it's a surprise he only complained about Suarez because he seemed to be in a state of extreme paranoia from start to finish.

 

[Y1]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=47188.msg1448729#msg1448729 date=1324463789]
If the entire match had been studied they would have seen that Evra was raging at everyone - other players, people in the crowd, officials, etc - from about the seventh minute on. I remember looking at him and thinking he was bound to get sent off at some stage. In retrospect it's a surprise he only complained about Suarez because he seemed to be in a state of extreme paranoia from start to finish.
[/quote]

Precisely!

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

Of course he should have kept schtumm. Players really do have to learn the lesson that these things will be picked up wherever they happen first to see the light of day.

I also get the point that the rules make this an offence of strict liability, but I don't get your dismissal of "reasonable mistake of fact". Luis' case was that he didn't know the different construction which would be put on what he said here, and I can't see that as less than reasonble based on (a) his still halting English and (b) the fact that the offending conversation itself was conducted in Spanish. I'd also suggest the FA rules in question can be attacked as defective based on the "mischief rule", given that they're aimed at removing racism but, at the same time, permit the conviction and punishment of someone whom the panel itself found not to be a racist.

 

[robinhood]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=47188.msg1448729#msg1448729 date=1324463789]
If the entire match had been studied they would have seen that Evra was raging at everyone - other players, people in the crowd, officials, etc - from about the seventh minute on. I remember looking at him and thinking he was bound to get sent off at some stage. In retrospect it's a surprise he only complained about Suarez because he seemed to be in a state of extreme paranoia from start to finish.
[/quote]



That's all well and good, but you don't insult someone on the basis of race in our culture, and for good reason.


Suarez, having been reported, was always going to get punished.


However, from a fan's point of view, we can be happy in the knowledge that he isn't actually *a racist*, he just made a mistake because of a cultural difference that he had yet to fully realise.


He's been punished too severely, no question, and hopefully an appeal will rectify this.

 

[i_rushie]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448724#msg1448724 date=1324463584]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So how would you reconcile the position that LFC have adopted - that he was found guilty solely on the basis of Evra's comments - when there is an admission ?
[/quote]

I suspect the withdrawal of the statement within 30 minutes answers that. But you weren't after an answer, were you? You know as well as I do that the admission sunk him.

 

[Jack D Rips]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448727#msg1448727 date=1324463647]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448715#msg1448715 date=1324463270]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So in other word he should have lied to prove his innocence.
[/quote]

No, he shouldn't have bothered giving evidence or talking to the newspapers back home.

Because to admit to it was stupid, as I got ridiculed for saying about 30 pages ago by the Merry Band.
[/quote]

Im not saying that it wasnt stupid. But by not giving evidence, or denying the truth ( that he was honest enough to admit to), he would have been lying to prove his innocence.

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448733#msg1448733 date=1324464221]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448724#msg1448724 date=1324463584]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So how would you reconcile the position that LFC have adopted - that he was found guilty solely on the basis of Evra's comments - when there is an admission ?
[/quote]

I suspect the withdrawal of the statement within 30 minutes answers that. But you weren't after an answer, were you? You know as well as I do that the admission sunk him.
[/quote]

Except that the statement wasn't withdrawn, according to posters on here who hunted it down at the time.

 

[FoxForceFive]

I'm confused as to how you can say someone isnt a racist then punish them for using a racial slur in an aggressive manner.

Surely the two things are contradictory? If you're not a racist and use a word that is socially acceptable where you grew up then it's not a slur IMO

 

[i_rushie]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448731#msg1448731 date=1324463988]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

Of course he should have kept schtumm. Players really do have to learn the lesson that these things will be picked up wherever they happen first to see the light of day.

I also get the point that the rules make this an offence of strict liability, but I don't get your dismissal of "reasonable mistake of fact". Luis' case was that he didn't know the different construction which would be put on what he said here, and I can't see that as less than reasonble based on (a) his still halting English and (b) the fact that the offending conversation itself was conducted in Spanish. I'd also suggest the FA rules in question can be attacked as defective based on the "mischief rule", given that they're aimed at removing racism but, at the same time, permit the conviction and punishment of someone whom the panel itself found not to be a racist.
[/quote]

The argument you're making really is one of reasonable mistake of law, not fact. You essentially saying he said something not knowing that that conduct was proscribed by law. That is a mistake of law, and not a defence to an offence of strict liability.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448735#msg1448735 date=1324464314]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448727#msg1448727 date=1324463647]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448715#msg1448715 date=1324463270]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So in other word he should have lied to prove his innocence.
[/quote]

No, he shouldn't have bothered giving evidence or talking to the newspapers back home.

Because to admit to it was stupid, as I got ridiculed for saying about 30 pages ago by the Merry Band.
[/quote]

Im not saying that it wasnt stupid. But by not giving evidence, or denying the truth ( that he was honest enough to admit to), he would have been lying to prove his innocence.
[/quote]

No, by not giving evidence he would have been denying the FA the rope with which they hung him.

 

[Spionkop69]

Having watched Evra's performance v QPR at close quarters, an 8 match ban for him would serve only to strengthen the Mancs for those games.

 

[robinhood]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1448740#msg1448740 date=1324464739]
I'm confused as to how you can say someone isnt a racist then punish them for using a racial slur in an aggressive manner.

Surely the two things are contradictory? If you're not a racist and use a word that is socially acceptable where you grew up then it's not a slur IMO
[/quote]



It's certainly an interesting area of discussion, and obviously these grey areas are open to interpretation.


I think that for this sort of thing you have to punish on action rather than intention because the aim is to drive racist language out of cultural acceptance.


Also, intention is hard to percieve.


However, I am happy to still love Suarez because I believe that he isn't actually suffering from some weird xenophobia. If I thought he was, I would have a problem with seeing him as a hero.

 

[Oncy]

Ive noticed an age divide (with a few exceptions) in this thread.

 

[robinhood]

The subject isn't black and white

 

[Jack D Rips]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448743#msg1448743 date=1324464918]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448735#msg1448735 date=1324464314]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448727#msg1448727 date=1324463647]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1448715#msg1448715 date=1324463270]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So in other word he should have lied to prove his innocence.
[/quote]

No, he shouldn't have bothered giving evidence or talking to the newspapers back home.

Because to admit to it was stupid, as I got ridiculed for saying about 30 pages ago by the Merry Band.
[/quote]

Im not saying that it wasnt stupid. But by not giving evidence, or denying the truth ( that he was honest enough to admit to), he would have been lying to prove his innocence.
[/quote]

No, by not giving evidence he would have been denying the FA the rope with which they hung him.
[/quote]

The old 5th amendment trick

 

[FoxForceFive]

But then you'd have frankly ridiculous cases where black players referring to each other by the n word, or even english players referring in a joking manner to welsh or irish players where again no offence was taken ended up charged with it.

Context and intention has to be taken into account surely?!

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448742#msg1448742 date=1324464835]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448731#msg1448731 date=1324463988]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

Of course he should have kept schtumm. Players really do have to learn the lesson that these things will be picked up wherever they happen first to see the light of day.

I also get the point that the rules make this an offence of strict liability, but I don't get your dismissal of "reasonable mistake of fact". Luis' case was that he didn't know the different construction which would be put on what he said here, and I can't see that as less than reasonble based on (a) his still halting English and (b) the fact that the offending conversation itself was conducted in Spanish. I'd also suggest the FA rules in question can be attacked as defective based on the "mischief rule", given that they're aimed at removing racism but, at the same time, permit the conviction and punishment of someone whom the panel itself found not to be a racist.
[/quote]

The argument you're making really is one of reasonable mistake of law, not fact. You essentially saying he said something not knowing that that conduct was proscribed by law. That is a mistake of law, and not a defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

How can it be a mistake of law rather than fact if the person making the mistake hasn't been made the subject of legal proceedings?

 

[LadyRed]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1448740#msg1448740 date=1324464739]
I'm confused as to how you can say someone isnt a racist then punish them for using a racial slur in an aggressive manner.

Surely the two things are contradictory? If you're not a racist and use a word that is socially acceptable where you grew up then it's not a slur IMO
[/quote]

Like I said, I think it's just semantics. I think one of the reasons it's taken so long for them to make the decision public is around the wording of what the FA put out, by all accounts the 8 match ban seemed to have been decided some time ago. I think our legal team has probably been fighting against the word 'racist' being in the FA's statement.

Just my opinion, obvi

 

[i_rushie]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448736#msg1448736 date=1324464392]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448733#msg1448733 date=1324464221]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448724#msg1448724 date=1324463584]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So how would you reconcile the position that LFC have adopted - that he was found guilty solely on the basis of Evra's comments - when there is an admission ?
[/quote]

I suspect the withdrawal of the statement within 30 minutes answers that. But you weren't after an answer, were you? You know as well as I do that the admission sunk him.
[/quote]

Except that the statement wasn't withdrawn, according to posters on here who hunted it down at the time.
[/quote]

I could very well be wrong, and the statement may not have been withdrawn, I simply haven't looked. Whether or not the club's statement reflects the FA's true position when the source document has not been made available is doubtful though, and I also highly doubt a QC in a quasi-judicial role would leave himself open to appellable error by not adverting to Suarez's admission in the finding of guilt.

 

[Mystic]

dom_campbell Dominic Campbell
There will be a verdict on the John Terry/ Anton Ferdinand race row today. Let's see how this one pans out.

Oh FA you are putting yourselves in a fantastic position here.

 

[Asbo]

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448758#msg1448758 date=1324465595]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448736#msg1448736 date=1324464392]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448733#msg1448733 date=1324464221]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448724#msg1448724 date=1324463584]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.

Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.

And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]

I agree fully.

Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]


And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]

So how would you reconcile the position that LFC have adopted - that he was found guilty solely on the basis of Evra's comments - when there is an admission ?
[/quote]

I suspect the withdrawal of the statement within 30 minutes answers that. But you weren't after an answer, were you? You know as well as I do that the admission sunk him.
[/quote]

Except that the statement wasn't withdrawn, according to posters on here who hunted it down at the time.
[/quote]

I could very well be wrong, and the statement may not have been withdrawn, I simply haven't looked. Whether or not the club's statement reflects the FA's true position when the source document has not been made available is doubtful though, and I also highly doubt a QC in a quasi-judicial role would leave himself open to appellable error by not adverting to Suarez's admission in the finding of guilt.
[/quote]

The Official LFC Statement?

Its on the main page of the official website ....